In the Abortion issue there are a set of arguments that are used over and over to support the holocaust that is going on in this country. The press or academic types never question these arguments, yet when these arguments are subjected to honest logical examination, they don’t hold water. In fact they aren’t even damp! (Ironically, they are at the same time, all wet) Here is such an examination of the pro-death positions.
Argument #1 “It’s a woman’s “right to reproductive choice”.

Answer: If a woman has indeed practiced reproductive choice, then what the blazes is she doing with an “unwanted” child? When conception occurs, THAT is when the choice is made. I wholeheartedly support a woman’s right to say no to casual sex. I find it very hypocritical that the same crowd who supports a woman’s “right“ to kill her children also supports the alleged “sexual revolution” or “modern morality”.
In actual practice this “sexual freedom” puts an ungodly amount of pressure on women to yield to casual sex. Women who choose to keep their virginity or to abstain from further sex are mocked in the name of this supposed “sexual freedom”. What kind of choice is that?

Argument #2 “An unborn baby is not a person, it is a “tissue mass” which has not yet achieved full personhood because:
They are dependant on their mother for survival, and;
They are not sentient or conscious beings yet.

Answer: Part of the argument above would reason that a preborn baby is totally dependent on his mother and is therefor not a complete individual. Truth is: all children of all ages (yep, we are always our parent’s children, no matter how old we are) are dependent on their mothers in varying degrees. An extension of this reasoning would say that the murder of children of any age is ok as long as their mothers authorize it. That it’s ok to kill people as long as you have a permission slip from their parents. Dependency on the mother is not just suddenly tossed away when the “fetus, tissue mass” (or whatever phrase is used to avoid calling him a baby) reaches “personhood”. Humans don’t develop in neatly numbered stages. Human development is a slope, not a series of steps. Children are dependent on their moms, and dads, in infinitely varying levels for their entire lives. At which point of dependency do they become persons with the full protection of society? How much self-reliance is required before someone no longer has to worry about being killed by his or her parents? When they are born? (Remember, birth is a trip of less then a foot)
Then we come to the little matter of intelligence or consciousness. If personhood requires a certain level of consciousness or alertness, then who determines what that level is? If alertness or awareness determines personhood, then anybody who is asleep or unconscious is fair game, with no protection by law or morals or whatever. What IQ do you need to be protected as a person under the law?
The question is: what determines when a so called bunch of cells becomes a human being? Who can make that judgement? Who decides? If you think you can tell me, then what or who authorizes you to make that determination? If you believe this is something between a mother and her doctor, or an abortionist and their lawyers, then you believe that one individual can just arbitrarily determine the personhood of another and act accordingly. If this is the case, what is to prevent the person you cut off in traffic this morning from deciding that someone who drives like a moron isn’t quite a complete person and can therefor legally be “terminated”? Simple fact is: there is no one on earth who can determine when personhood begins. Innocent human life must be protected at all times. When enough people are fooled into thinking otherwise there is no limit to the horrors that can arise. Don’t think so? Just go visit a place called “Auschwitz”.

Argument #3: Abortions prevent “unwanted” children.

Answer: There is no evidence, statistical or otherwise, which supports this. In reality, there is no such thing as an “unwanted” child. Somebody out there wants that child, even if his mom doesn’t. All children are wanted. That’s why there are waiting lines at adoption places. When a mother doesn’t want her child the defect is in the non-wannabe parent, not the child, and it is illogical and unfair to punish the child by executing him or her. Let’s face it, when someone is pregnant, they did something to get that way. Pregnancy does not just drop out of the blue on people. The proponents of the above argument would have us believe this scenario: Here is the mother-to-be just walking down the sidewalk, innocently minding her own business, doing nothing inappropriate when…BAM! She is with child! She looks around bewildered. Where did this come from? How did this happen? This baby just showed up in her tummy! What’s going on here?
Sorry folks, this doesn’t wash. Nearly everybody at the age of sexual maturity knows at least some version of the birds and the bees. There is such a thing as responsibility even if you keep your head securely implanted in the sand hoping it will go away.
Even if the child is a surprise, nearly every mother wants that baby very much once that child is in her arms. Very, very few mothers will look at their little baby and say “gee little person, I wish I had had you aborted”.
For those that do, well once again we are back at the argument about not executing the child for the defect in the parent.

Argument #4 What about cases of incest or rape?

Answer: OK What about cases of incest or rape? The most reliable stats peg the percentage of abortions associated with rape or incest at somewhere around 1 percent of total abortions committed. Incest is even less. Using this miniscule percentage of cases to justify all 100 percent of the abortion on demand trade is absurd. It is like using a case where someone kills an assailant to defend herself to justify all the homicides that take place in the entire world.
In the event of a case of rape, we are left with a sticky situation where we need to choose between two perceived evils. This is nothing new. War is evil, but in the 1940’s the world had to choose the evil of war to stop the even greater evil of Nazi domination. In the case of rape, we have two choices, both bad.
It is a trade off between two persons, the mother and the baby:
Have the mother carry the baby for nine months and give her the choice of raising the child or having him adopted.
Killing the baby and robbing this person of their entire life.

Now lets look at the time thing here. If the baby is adopted out (and there are plenty of good families waiting to adopt babies) then the mother has the difficulty and trauma of carrying him for nine months. After which time, she can get on with her life. In the event the child is killed, then the mother is spared the nine months of trouble (but not the abortion trauma) and the “terminated” person is robbed of around seventy years of life on earth, with all its joys, sorrows and experiences. Either way, the mother still has the horror, the evil of the rape. Abortion will not make that go away.

Argument #5 Abortion mercifully keeps children from a possible life of abuse.

Answer: This argument is beyond stupid! You mean to tell me that you can save a child from possible abuse by ripping their limbs off and smashing their heads, or burning their skin off with chemicals, or jamming a pair of scissors up through their neck, sucking their brain out and crushing their skull? These are just a few of the wonders of abortion, all of which are committed without the benefit of anesthetic. If this is not child abuse, then there is no such thing. Just because a not yet born child can’t scream or vote or make donations to liberal political action committees doesn’t mean they don’t feel agony. In addition, if the idea is to prevent any possibility of a child being abused, why not just kill all the kids before they’re born, since any child has the possibility of being abused. This leads us on to the next Argument:

Argument #6 Abortion is needed to help prevent overpopulation.

Answer: The idea that the world is overpopulated is shaky at best. You can point to all the famines and food shortages you want, but you will not be pointing to anything caused by overpopulation. Politics, selfishness and greed, not overpopulation, cause famines. Every famine I have ever heard about is caused by a civil war, a revolution, or some horrific government that doesn’t give a flying hoot about its citizens.
In each case, large stockpiles of food were available but weren’t distributed due to politics. Abortion will not do anything to solve this problem. Most abortions take place in developed nations that have population growth which has leveled off or is actually declining. At any rate, overpopulation doesn’t justify murdering babies, or anyone else for that matter.

Argument #6 Having an unplanned baby ruins the mother’s life.

Answer: Ahh! Here we get one of the pivotal issues of the abortion argument. The thing we need to really look at is what sort of “ruin” is being referred to in the above argument. Is it actual “ruin” of the mother’s health, ‘the “ruin” of her career, or financial “ruin” or perhaps the ruin of her convenience? In most cases when the pro-abortionist says “ruin” they mean “inconvenience” since most mothers do not have their health, careers, or finances ruined by childbirth. Birth is a natural process and mothers are well equipped for it. Normally what is ruined is the convenience of people who don’t want to take responsibility for their choices and actions.
And now, here is the real crux of the pro-abortion gang:

Argument #7 We make a lot of money and get a lot of political power from abortion on demand.

I know this sounds cold and cynical, but this is the only thing that can explain the way the pro-abortion mob sets up such a howling and wailing and gnashing of teeth every time even the slightest limit on abortion is mentioned. They even oppose such inoffensive measures as informing the parents of minor girls when said child is considering an abortion. They go on and on about how the pro-lifers are so intolerant and unreasonable, but then resort to name-calling and hysteria when asked to compromise on any point of the pro-abortion agenda. It looks like these are a bunch of people who are scared to death of tolerating anything that might cut into their profits or political power.
One thing that doesn’t get mentioned enough is what damage abortion does to the mother. The baby is killed and the tiny soul gone back to his Maker, but the mother lives on with trauma, sadness and guilt. The guilt does not come from social conditioning, or pro-lifers, or cultural prejudices. The guilt and sadness comes from a simple truth. That truth is: It is simply not right or natural for human parents to kill their kids. This is something those reproductive choice people never tell their prospective victims. There will be a lifetime of sadness as the mother wonders about the killed child. What would he have looked like? What would have been her favorite music? What talents would he have had? What wonderful gifts would she have shared with society? This is the lingering pain they must face long after the abortionist has collected his fee and gone home in his BMW.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple. No matter how much it is sugarcoated, an innocent person is being killed to make things easier for another, and to make money for the abortionist. In our society, people recoil when they hear about places where infanticide and child sacrifice are a way of life. They seethe with anger when they learn about rural societies where baby girls are left outside to die. They are horrified when they learn of ancient cultures that threw their kids into volcanoes, or burned them alive to dedicate a temple. Well folks, America is no better than any of these guys are. Since Roe v Wade, forty million unborn babies have been sacrificed at the altar of the god of convenience. That’s more people killed here than Hitler and Stalin could have dreamed of.
They would have been proud, or perhaps envious, of the pro-abortionists of America.

If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! TRUST JESUS NOW

Read more articles by Brian Jensen or search for articles on the same topic or others.